GENIUS FORUMS

millipodium wrote:

millipodium wrote: I don't care what you think, dipshit.

Ad hominem attack. Not effective.

And "dipshit" is not ad hominem? But I've been called worse than that in the newspaper, you'll have to do better than that. Insulting people is a fine art. I keep hoping you'll say something of interest....waiting....waiting...

But my posts contain real arguments IN ADDITION to amusing personal attacks. You MERELY provide personal attacks. Im not against personal attacks per se, but I also recognize they are NOT SUFFICIENT in and of themselves. You have not realized this.

millipodium wrote: You have not realized this.

Because...there is no there there.
...still waiting...

This is gibberish.

Reedsch wrote: That is one of the problems with bright people, they tend to assume that they are the only ones God gave any intelligence to, and that anyone who disagrees with them is because of faulty logic, lack of information.

The problem is also with people who express disagreement, but fail to provide any information backing up their disagreement/argument.

I was glad to see that you're most recent reply to me had a bit more useful content.

Reed: It is quite obvious that stored hydrocarbon energy has been converted into biomass, a significant part of it human flesh. Sure, the wheels could come off at any time (another pun for you). My point is that nature is not self-limiting.

Well, I may have seemed bright in past posts - -- but, truth be told, I havent heard much, read much, or thought much about coverting hydrocarbon energy into 'biomass'. And when you say 'a significant part of it human flesh', I don't know what 'it' is. Do you mean human flesh is hydrocarbon that can be converted into biomass?

If 'helping your fellow human beings become less ignorant' is one of your values, then you are going to have to elaborate a bit more here, because I'm having difficulting understanding what you are saying/implying.

It's a bit new to me.

My suspicion is that the mass of humanity will not scale back their consumption until they are forced to by external conditions.

That was my argument exactly. Scaling back consumption means scaling back population.

reed: However we are not lemmings and it is possible to change course before ramming the iceberg.

Yes, perhaps. Or, it is by ramming into an iceberg that we may become motivated to radically change from the ground up.

Reed: The real problem is the vested financial interest in the status quo: factory food and farming, Cheetos culture, etc. Fat cats will indeed drive their gravy train right off the cliff.

And that sort of conclusion is what my previous posts/arguments have been supporting.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Well, I may have seemed bright in past posts - -- but, truth be told, I havent heard much, read much, or thought much about coverting hydrocarbon energy into 'biomass'. And when you say 'a significant part of it human flesh', I don't know what 'it' is. Do you mean human flesh is hydrocarbon that can be converted into biomass?

I believe what he is referring to is the fact that we are carbon based life forms (and carbon molecules tend to supplant the spaces in their outer electron shell with hydrogen). We eat carbohydrates and become hydrocarbons. (oversimplified)

elizabeth wrote:I believe what he is referring to is the fact that we are carbon based life forms (and carbon molecules tend to supplant the spaces in their outer electron shell with hydrogen). We eat carbohydrates and become hydrocarbons. (oversimplified)

how is this not trivial information? How is it relevant to what has been said on this thread ealier?

I thought Reedsch might have been implying that corpses of recently deceased old people and accidental deaths of young people could be used to power farming equipment.

reedsch wrote:It is quite obvious that stored hydrocarbon energy has been converted into biomass,

He already stated that it was an obvious point. If the trivia was not important to you, why did you ask?

edit to add:

Cory Duchesne wrote:I thought Reedsch might have been implying that corpses of recently deceased old people and accidental deaths of young people could be used to power farming equipment.

Ha ha.

I looked it up, because I was remembering that we can also use/wear hydrocarbons, and I now think he may have also been referring to the fuel that you were talking about earlier in the thread, which is being used to increase the human population. This could have been one of the puns he was referring to (although originally I only got the "wheel" one - or part of it anyway).

reedsh wrote: My point is that nature is not self-limiting

I guess my problem with you reedsh is that your comment implies that my previous posts were based on a logic that assumed nature was self-limiting.

First of all, I don't even know what you mean by self-limiting.

Nature is certainly limited in regards to the frequency and quanity of what it can produce.

Humans tend to turn a blind eye to obvious limits in nature and instead, while they gleefully destroy and overpopulate the earth, focus on the idea of a heaven that they go to when they die.

Or they derive security in more intellecutal sounding, but equally vapid ways.

My point is that human stupidity is the result of not showing proper respect to limits.

to put it as concisely as possible: Stupidity is living in denial of limits.

milli wrote:You're blaming the victim, because you don't have the nuts to hold perpetrators responsible. The Elite dictate the "common values" you disdain.

Well, considering how common your values are Milli, and considering how feverently you try to instill them in others -- I would say you are the elitist dictator that you disdain.


You have made the enemy something very far, far away from you. It must be very comfortable. Like being in the womb with your thumb in your mouth.

No. Identifying elitism is not elitism. The "esoteric" teachings have always been justifications for evil, and nothing else.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: He already stated that it was an obvious point.

Pls forgive my use of hyperbole, it's not all that obvious. If I farm 4 acres by hand (and I have helped do it, an acre is pretty damn big!), I am converting my own effort into food energy. If I use a horse-drawn machine to farm 40 acres and raise 800 bushels of corn, the horse-energy went into the production/distribution of the food. If I use a diesel tractor to plant and harvest 400 acres and create 55,000 bushels of corn, some of the stored energy in the fossil fuel was used to create (and distribute) the food energy. The easiest way to prove the equation would be to remove the fossil fuel input and see how food production drops like a rock, and with it the human population count.

{Between 1930 and 2003, average corn yields jumped nearly sevenfold, from 20.5 bushels per acre to 142.2 bushels per acre. Not all attributable to fossil fuel input...obviously ;-) }

Cory Duchesne wrote:My point is that human stupidity is the result of not showing proper respect to limits.

How do you know what the limit is, until you reach (or exceed) it?

By self-limiting I meant for an organism to intentionally forego reproduction due to POTENTIAL negative factors i.e. preventive population control. Natural populations are always kept in check by external factors. Mice with their larger litters and shorter gestation cycles will reproduce at a faster rate than horses, but geometric progression would allow even horse populations to explode.

Humans are the only ones who use foresight. Apparently it doesn't work very well though....or maybe it does?

I asked this in an eariler forum, if anyone had ever seen an observation that I was told is attributted to Darwin: that intelligent people would tend to mate with other intelligent people and eschew the dummies, who would reproduce with each other. Eventually the human race would diverge into 2 distinct subspecies. The intelligent ones would see that the planet was becoming overcrowded and slow down their reproduction, whereas the dummies would just keep spawning. Eventually the bright subspecies would die out due to failure to reproduce.
This may be urban legend. I do my part to forestall it by nailing as many dumb chicks as I can ;-)

Cory Duchesne wrote:

milli wrote:You're blaming the victim, because you don't have the nuts to hold perpetrators responsible. The Elite dictate the "common values" you disdain.

Well, considering how common your values are Milli, and considering how feverently you try to instill them in others -- I would say you are the elitist dictator that you disdain.


You have made the enemy something very far, far away from you. It must be very comfortable. Like being in the womb with your thumb in your mouth.

Well, you're considerations have been ill executed if you've come to the conclusion that being critical of elitism is elitism. Im not really trying that hard to instill values. If you feel yourself being converted, that's just a side effect of my effective arguing and incisive insights.

Milli, my point is that you dictate and defend common values.

Don't you see the absurdity of your position?

milli wrote: Well, you're considerations have been ill executed if you've come to the conclusion that being critical of elitism is elitism.

You have common values.

And I'm critical of common values. Common people prefer, admire, envy and endeavor to imitate elitist lifestyles. Why do you think those magazines with the beautiful people on the covers are so popular? Because the commoners enjoy it.

Common people and the elite people essentially have the same values. The main difference is the elitist people have better bodies, prettier faces, and more clever brains and so they are able to be producers of more spectaculer pleasure, whereas the more poorly endowed are the producers of the more mundane and practical needs, or sometimes they are the producers of really tacky or vulgar pleasures.

Dumb and dumber.

Mick Jagger once had a DVD called: "Being Mick: You would if you could".

Despite the low-brow nature of Mick's DVD self promo - he's actually right. People's modest lives aren't really the result of moral choice and restraint. Their biological limitations and environmental conditions during childhood cause their lack of charisma, cleverness, risk taking, courage, endurance, etc... and so their relatively weak attributes stop them from being big monsters.

Instead they are involuntarily regulated to being just little little monsters. Religion, Church and Charity work helps justify their beastly little minds.

Most humans are just little monsters - - -inspired by, frightened of, envying, and admiring the big monsters.

Some choose to walk away from omelas.

The number of times you said "commoners" reveals your elitism.

milli wrote:The number of times you said "commoners" reveals your elitism.

LOL - I'm not trying to conceal my elitist position here! Don't you remember those debates you and I used to have?

Your thread: to the mystic geniuses has many examples of me trying to defend elitism. Elitism is one of my values.

The sort of treatment humans generally prefer is simply attention.

I only give attention to those who I see as sufficiently superior.

The others I for the most part ignore.

And if I do give them attention, it is not the kind of attention they prefer. I may study them like a biologists studies insects. Or I may firmly rebuke them - knowing that it's for their own good.

Wow. You're a real Mengele wannabe aren't you! lol.

milli wrote:Wow. You're a real Mengele wannabe aren't you! lol.

No - but having no idea what Omelas and Mengele meant and then looking them up in the encylopedia lead to a good laugh each time.

But I depict myself as cold and heartless because I value having a part of me that is ruthless (not violent and sadistic). I just think its important to be in a state that is devoid of all emotion, a state that is indifferent to what happens, a state that can view events and phenomena scientifically rather than merely emotionally.

The truth is that there is a part of me that is very soft and sympathetic. I hold back the quivering and the tears when I hear about peoples loss, death of family members, and I likewise hold back tears when I see a good drama or documentary that depicts the human condition well.

Being so emotinally sensitive and sympathetic makes a person quite vicious as well.

It's the newtons law thingy.

Compassion/sympathy is a vice if you are incapable of retiring into a state that is exceptionally ruthless in terms of how inhuman and cold the analysis of a situation is.

You shouldnt try and destroy the demon within. People do so in the name of morality. This is a disease. If you deny your demon and try to supress it, then it will manifests itself without you being aware of it, it will take control and your life will end up a foolish mess.

Socrates was considered Demonic - - - this was simply because he observed ruthlessly and truthfully without allowing his sympathy for peoples feelings and weakness prevent him from going after the truth. He turned out to be a great angel.

The problem starts when demonic individuals start trying to control the lives of human being.

Hitler for instance was a good example of someone who allowed his demonic to live, eat and breath to a degree, but he didnt respect other peoples freedom, and this is probably because he wasnt demonic enough.

He let his angelic image of himself take flight too soon, and the big noble hero turned into the great monster. He spoiled his chance at being an angel.

Mother Tereasa, didnt have any demonic in her at all. She was a grubby little monster.

She deserved a real kick in the box, that one.

My god, man, who beat you?

reedsh wrote:I asked this in an eariler forum, if anyone had ever seen an observation that I was told is attributted to Darwin

I dont know either.

Intelligent people would tend to mate with other intelligent people and eschew the dummies, who would reproduce with each other.

Yes, Milli would frown upon this elitist behavior.

Eventually the human race would diverge into 2 distinct subspecies.

Yes, I can see it happening.

reedsch wrote: The intelligent ones would see that the planet was becoming overcrowded and slow down their reproduction, whereas the dummies would just keep spawning.

No, but the dummies might not if there is the minimal education required to show that large families arent really worth it.

Besides, by the time there becomes 2 different species, the dummies might actually be smart enough to slow down the reproduction.

Eventually the bright subspecies would die out due to failure to reproduce.

If they are truly bright, then I wouldnt think they would allow that.

reedsh wrote: I do my part to forestall it by nailing as many dumb chicks as I can ;-)

LOL - I can't help but picture those words coming out of the mouth of that little tyke in your avatar. Some funny images there - -especially with his expression as it is.